Ο ορυκτός πλούτος της Ελλάδας

Fossil fuels after the EU EnergyRoad Map 2050 and 2030

Energy Package

Dr Marios LeonardosPublic Power Corporation, Greece

Euracoal

Marios Leonardos Fossil fuels after the EU Energy Road Map 2050 and 2030 Energy Package 1

Electricity cost (€/MWh) for various CO2 pricesTHERMAL POWER PLANT FULL COST E/MWh


More CO2 in the air means more plant growth


THE ROADMAP

The European Commission EnergyRoadmap 2050 (December 2011)forms part of the EU's strategy

to move towards a low-carbon economyby 2050

The roadmap is best understood as a political document


Key points from the roadmap

T An 80% to 95% reduction in EU Glass House Gases (GHG) emissionsbelow 1990 levels by 2050,

T Targets for 2030 - the Commission will prepare a new strategy in2012 to increase the share of renewables post 2020 and setmilestones for CO2 capture and storage (CCS), with possible policychanges to address funding of demonstration plants, CO2infrastructure and legal issues associated with cross-border CO2transport.

T An EU-wide framework to boost security of energy supply andsolidarity by creating certainty and stability for investment. This ap-plies especially to renewables support which the Commission sayswould be less costly if Member States followed a common approach


Five Decarbonisation Scenarios to 2050

1. High energy efficiency.

2. Diversified supply technologies - market-based solution with nosupport for specific technologies (assumes public acceptance ofnuclear and CCS)

3. High renewables - 97% renewables in electricity consumption

4. Delayed CCS and a higher share of nuclear

5. Low nuclear - 32% of electricity from plants with CCS in 2050 (2% in2030) with no new nuclear plants


Energy Roadmap 2050 Implications

EU Comission side Polish Chamber ofCommerce side

Primary energy demand would fall by between32% and 41% by 2050 from its 2005/06 peak Average electricity prices would be highestunder the high renewables scenario (€199/MWh),but other scenarios show increases of between34% and 44% compared with 2005 (€109/MWh)

Wholesale electricity prices are estimated to be 4times higher by 2030 in comparison to 2005

Total energy system costs are expected to risefrom around 10.5% of GDP today to over 14% ofGDP in 2050

The share of energy costs in householdsbud-gets will grow from 11% in 2005 to 14.0-15.3% in the period 2020-2050

GDP is assumed to grown at a healthy 1.7% p.a.(c.f. 0.58% p.a. 2005- 2010)

GDP is calculated to decrease by 5% in 2020,10% in 2030 and 12.5% in 2050 due to energyprice increases.80 billion euros that will be needed forenergy-sector investments


2050 EU coal consumption EU Commission figures

L Coal's share in EU electricity generation drops from around 28% todayto between 2.1% and 13.1% in 2050 in the five decarbonisationscenarios, with corresponding falls in the share of coal in the primaryenergy mix.

L One of the reasons for this decline in the EU's most competitiveenergy source for electricity generation is the assumption made onthe capital cost of new power plants.

L The Commission assumes that coal- fired plants with carbon captureand sequestration (CCS) are over 50% more costly than a normalpower station


GREEN PAPER / A 2030 FRAMEWORK FORCLIMATE AND ENERGY POLICIES

On the 27th of March 2013, the European Commission published itsGreen Paper on a 2030 framework [2] for climate and energy policy,

alongside a new communication on CCS.

There are no great surprises in the paper: an ambitious 40% GHGemissions reduction target for 2030 is postulated. The paper has a clear

bias towards renewables and gas, but does point out that renewablesmust be competitive.


EU leaders summit

on 23/24 October 2014

for the 2030 climate andenergy package


EU leaders summit on 23/24 October for the2030 climate and energy package

"The morning after":< Alexander STUBB, Finnish

Prime Minister; < Mark RUTTE, Dutch Prime

Minister; < Angela MERKEL, German

Federal Chancellor; and< Rosen PLEVNELIEV,

President of the Republicof Bulgaria

examine text on the 2030climate targets with obviousconcern about exactly whatthey agreed to late on 23October 2014.


EU leaders summit on 23/24 October 2014 for2030 climate and energy package

EU leaders agreed at their on 23/24 October to many of the proposals made in theEurope summit an Commission's 2030 climate and energy package of January 2014:K a binding EU target of at least 40% lower domestic GHG emissions by 2030,

compared to 1990, with sectors covered by the ETS required to make a 43%reduction (compared with 2005), and with a 30% EU-wide reduction for non-ETSsectors where member states’ efforts will be distributed on the basis of relative GDPper capita (from 0% to 40%) and collective efforts rewarded by the greater use offlexible mechanisms;

K doubling the share of renewable energy in final energy consumption to a binding,EU-wide target of at least 27%;

K an energy efficiency improvement of at least 27% compared with currentprojections of future energy consumption, but “having in mind” a 30% EU-leveltarget when the target is reviewed in 2020; and

K completion of the internal market, assisted by raising the existing 10% target forelectricity interconnection between members states by 2020 to 15% by 2030, ascalled for by Spain and Portugal.


The United Nations International Climate Change Conference,COP21,Paris, France,30 November to 11 December 2015

At a press conference late on Thursday night (23/10/2014), Council President,Herman van Rompuy, said that,

"this agreement should shape the post-2020 world order, at least interms of climate policy!"

Interestingly, the Council will revert to this issue after the Paris Conference. So, what wasagreed this week may not be final. Indeed, all elements of the framework will be keptunder review, notably the consensus on ETS, non-ETS, interconnections and energyefficiency.

According to van Rompuy, this means that the Council could demand tougher targets, butthe text could equally well be interpreted as meaning that the EU targets could beweakened if non-EU countries are unwilling to agree similarly ambitious targets in Paris.

Although they are not the end of the story,

the Council conclusions

are not good for the future of coal use in the EU.


Intended Nationally Determined ContributionsThe Conference of the Parties (COP)

The COP, by its decisions 1/CP.19 and 1/CP.20, invited all Parties to communicate to thesecretariat their INDCs well in advance of COP 21 (by the first quarter of 2015 by those Partiesready to do so) in a manner that facilitates the clarity, transparency and understanding of the INDC.

Party Date of Submission

Gabon 2015-04-01

Latvia and the EuropeanCommission on behalf ofthe European Union and itsMember States.

2015-03-06 The EU and its Member States are committed to a binding target of an at

least 40% domestic reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030

compared to 1990, to be fulfilled jointly

No contribution from international credits.

Mexico 2015-03-30 Mexico is committed to reduce unconditionally 25% of its Greenhouse Gases and ShortLived Climate Pollutants emissions (below BAU) for the year 2030.

2020: 906 MtCO2e

2025: 1013 MtCO2e

2030: 1110 MtCO2e

Norway 2015-03-27 Norway is committed to a target of an at least 40% reduction of greenhouse gas emissionsby 2030 compared to 1990 levels.Norway intends to fulfil this commitment through acollective delivery with the EU and its Member States. In the event that there is noagreement on a collective delivery with the EU, Norway will fulfil the commitmentindividually.

Russia 2015-04-01 Limiting anthropogenic greenhouse gases in Russia to 70-75% of 1990 levels by the year2030 might be a long-term indicator, subject to the maximum possible account ofabsorbing capacity of forests.

Switzerland 2015-02-27

United States of America 2015-03-31 United States intends to achieve an economy-wide target of reducing its greenhouse gasemissions by 26-28 per cent below its 2005 level in 2025


SUMMARY


The reason for the chaos

in the European Electrical

Energy System :

Renewable

Energy Power Generation


Renewable Energy Power Generation (1/3) Energy storage

< Renewable energy like wind or solar is notproduced when needed, so storage is needed,and this is expensive. All the promoters ofrenewable energy ignore the need for storage.

< What is needed is a large- scale, efficient, low-cost technology that can store huge amounts ofelectrical energy for weeks or months. Nosuitable technology exists or has even beencontemplated.

< Hydro-pumped storage is the best available. It isexpensive -at least $1500 /kW - and requires twovery large storage lakes not far from each otherand with one lake something like 700 m higherthan the other. The losses are 25-50%.

< The cost, the losses, and the difficulty of findinga suitable site are insuperable barriers to large-scale adoption of hydro-pumped storage.


Renewable Energy Power Generation (2/3)System Reliability

T For more than 100 years electricity generation and distribution systems haveevolved to become one of the most reliable services imaginable -one which hasbeen the foundation of the industrial expansion and prosperity of the developedworld.

T Huge thermal base-load steam turbine generation plants that can reliably providethe same power output 7x24x365 are the foundation of the system in most parts ofthe world.

T When electrical demand starts to peak in the late afternoon and evening peakingplants come into play. These are typically single cycle natural gas turbine plantsthat can come on-line in a matter of 15-20 minutes or less.

T Over the past decade that balance has been disrupted by the introduction ofrenewable energy sources such as solar and wind.

T These are both unreliable in the sense that it is not possible to match supply withdemand, and highly variable due to passing of clouds in the case of solar or frontalweather systems for wind.


Renewable Energy Power Generation (3/3)Economics

< As long as renewables made up a relatively small portion of total generationcapacity the physical problems could be handled.

< But the economic issues are now coming to the fore as the development ofrenewables continues. With base-load and peaking thermal plants nowsitting idle (as spinning reserves) for more and more of the time theeconomics of running these plants has been significantly eroded.

< Many of these plants are marginally profitable or are actually losing money.There is no realistic hope that this trend will do anything but accelerate incoming years.

< As a result it is becoming increasingly difficult to get financing for theconstruction of new thermal generation plants


Renewable Energy Power GenerationConclusions

< People who tell us that it is possible to run modern power systemsfrom wind power, solar power and marine energy are not telling thetruth.

< I personally don't see any public support or political will to try andslow down the introduction of renewables in order to proactivelyprotect the integrity of the electrical system.

< I fear that we will have to experience repeated significant failures inthe system before the scale of the problem is fully appreciated.

< It seems like we just have to learn things the hard way


WHY ?

We must protectEarth from Climate

Change


Reconstructed global temperature over the past 420,000 years based on the Vostok ice core from theAntarctica (Petit et al. 2001). The record spans over four glacial periods and five interglacials, including thepresent. The horizontal line indicates the modern temperature. The red square to the right indicates the

time interval shown in greater detail in the following figure.


The upper panel shows the air temperature at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet, reconstructed by Alley (2000) from GISP2 ice core data. The time scale shows years before modern time.The rapid temperature rise to the left indicate the final part of the even more pronounced temperature increase following the last ice age. The temperature scale at the right hand side of the upperpanel suggests a very approximate comparison with the global average temperature (see comment below). The GISP2 record ends around 1854, and the two graphs therefore ends here. Therehas since been an temperature increase to about the same level as during the Medieval Warm Period and to about 395 ppm for CO2. The small reddish bar in the lower right indicate theextension of the longest global temperature record (since 1850), based on meteorological observations (HadCRUT3). The lower panel shows the past atmospheric CO2 content, as found from theEPICA Dome C Ice Core in the Antarctic (Monnin et al. 2004). The Dome C atmospheric CO2 record ends in the year 1777.


CONCLUSIONSThere is not a single argument to support the Energy

Roadmap 2050 and, after the Fukushima event, fossil fuelswill continue to dominate the electricity production

! The predictions of the AGW supporters have failed. The global warming ceased in1998 and, most possibly, we are heading towards cooler climate.

! The CO2 concentration continues to increase, invalidating its correlation with theglobal warming

! The renewables are fading out from the problems creating in the electrical systemscombined with the elevated cost

! EU Commission is left alone to create, at a huge cost for the citizens, a low carboneconomy


Ο ορυκτός πλούτος της Ελλάδας

Documents

Transcript of Ο ορυκτός πλούτος της Ελλάδας